Nevertooold - 2015-06-26 11:13 AM


I think they should be able to share in the great delight of divorce. Can't wait to hear the whining when that happens..LOL 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 6:27 PM


Don't bet on that.  There is plenty of fallout to come.  Some counties in Alabama have stopped giving marriage licenses to anybody already.  TX Governor Gregg Abbott has already issued directive to all under his authority to make preservation of religious rights a priority.  Some states are considering not giving out licenses to anybody.  Churches are concerned about being forced to violate their conscience.  This discussion is long from over.  Civil disobedience by Churches, religious organizations and some state and local authorities is at it's highest probability since the civil war. 

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 5:47 PM I do not agree with you on this. The intent of 14th was to settle the race issue after the civil war. No where was the Virginia case settled on marriage it was settled on race which was the intent of the 14th. Only by ignoring the intent of the 14th and adding the assumption that sex is covered in the 14th can SCOTUS find for same sex marriage there by changing the text ( in effect). Nothing in the 14th gives the right to marry. That is covered under the 10th amendment which gives the right to the States.

Anniemae - 2015-06-27 12:47 AM


 Opinion
WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 2:33 PM

Both cases cited the 14th amendment, specifically section 1. 
Both cases concern marriage and the states definition therein. One was interracial, one was same sex.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text to the 14th amendment hasn't been changed or altered. The interpretation of the 14th amendment has been futher defined by today's SCOTUS ruling.     
 
 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 6:27 PM


Don't bet on that.  There is plenty of fallout to come.  Some counties in Alabama have stopped giving marriage licenses to anybody already.  TX Governor Gregg Abbott has already issued directive to all under his authority to make preservation of religious rights a priority.  Some states are considering not giving out licenses to anybody.  Churches are concerned about being forced to violate their conscience.  This discussion is long from over.  Civil disobedience by Churches, religious organizations and some state and local authorities is at it's highest probability since the civil war. 

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 11:37 AM


And what about The Tenth Amendment (which precedes and is observed as one of The Bill of Rights)?


Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw



constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html


In essence an unelected group of Nine Judges in effect neutered The Tenth Amendment and forces THEIR Own Political Doctrine upon a Constitutional Republic thereby null and voiding The Constitutional in which THEY (the Nine Appointed Judges) have sworn to uphold! A Case for Treason could be construed from this and other SCOTUS that flagrantly defy The Constitution of The United States of America.

Bear - 2015-06-27 12:53 PM


My position on homosexuality has evolved over the last 20 years or so, I'm proud to admit. I used to hate homosexuals.....yes, the word "hate" is the best way to describe it. I don't know why, exactly, but I did. Maybe it's because the thought of gay sex was revolting to me, I suppose just like the way heterosexual sex is revolting to many gays. I came to be of the belief that gay people are usually born that way. In other words, God created them that way. Once I became convinced of that, I asked myself, "why would God create someone like that and turn around and condemn them to hell?" I accept that the bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, just like all the other sins we are all guilty of committing, but until recently this particular sin has been singled out as one that is particularly revolting. Lying, cheating, taking His name in vain, adultery, stealing, coveting, etc..., are things that we as a society have a lot more tolerance for, compared to homosexuality. We have tended to have much more tolerance for those since which we are more apt to commit. If you believe that gays are born that way, then we don't have to worry about becoming homosexuals.....hence we, as a society, have had this selective outrage. Being gay evolved into a punching bag, of sorts, for the rest of us sinners.
If you are of the belief that unrepentant sinners are to be condemned to hell, then I suspect hell will be just as hot for us as it will be for gays.
I was once married to a woman who "acted" religious. She quoted the bible incessantly to prove that homosexuality is a sin. She also felt they are all condemned to perdition. She was also a bigot. I thought she was a saint, incapable of lying. Then came the day when I realized she was a hypocrite who hid behind a huge religious facade. Somehow she felt that the outward appearance of religiosity would earn her a pass for her own sins. In reality, she was a masterful liar and adulteress. Within a year of my realization of this, we were divorced.
I have relatives who are gay. Carol and I have gay friends. We love them, even though they are just as capable of being an ******* as I am. One thing I have experienced, as far gay people is concerned, is gay people have the same good qualities as the rest of us heterosexuals. They are kind, generous, loving people who only want the freedoms and liberty that the rest of us often take for granted. I don't think they are asking too much.
For these reasons, I am happy for them. The Supreme Court ruling was a huge landmark decision for them, and I hope this paves the way for society to focus on matters that remain problematic. I am also a huge believer in states rights, which is a sticky wicket here, because I'm a huge believer in states rights, but let's all remember that "states rights" was a big premise on which we suffered through a civil war. Back then, the pro-slavery people used the 10th amendment was the premise on which they bolstered their views that slavery ought to be allowed. It was a false premise then, just as it is now. Those who use "states rights" as the basis of banning gay marriage, conveniently and selectively forget another important fundamental principle on which this nation was founded, namely: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This is why I have decided to leave the matter of the "gay sin" up to the real "Supreme Court", who shall determine the ultimate punishment and fate of all of us sinners.

Bear - 2015-06-27 12:53 PM...... Those who use "states rights" as the basis of banning gay marriage, conveniently and selectively forget another important fundamental principle on which this nation was founded, namely: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." .....

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 12:59 PM


Your understanding of History is flawed Doc. Follow the money on The Civil War.....................Who benefitted (monetarily) from keeping The Union intact? When you answer that, then we will discuss more.
Apply the same benefitting logic to Same Sex Marriage Permission via a Rogue un-elected nonaccountable group of Activist Judges.

And my beliefs on Homosexuality are separate from my support of The Constitution of The United States of America which has the ability to modified but not via Rogue Activists Lawmakers or Judges!

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!

I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.



So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.



Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.

(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)